Barriers and facilitators to qualitative data sharing in the United States: A survey of qualitative researchers.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Mozersky J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8719660 | biostudies-literature | 2021
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Barriers and facilitators to qualitative data sharing in the United States: A survey of qualitative researchers.
Mozersky Jessica J McIntosh Tristan T Walsh Heidi A HA Parsons Meredith V MV Goodman Melody M DuBois James M JM
PloS one 20211231 12
Qualitative health data are rarely shared in the United States (U.S.). This is unfortunate because gathering qualitative data is labor and time-intensive, and data sharing enables secondary research, training, and transparency. A new U.S. federal policy mandates data sharing by 2023, and is agnostic to data type. We surveyed U.S. qualitative researchers (N = 425) on the barriers and facilitators of sharing qualitative health or sensitive research data. Most researchers (96%) have never shared qu ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe impetus for policies promoting medical data sharing in China has gained significant traction. Nonetheless, the present legal and ethical framework governing the research use of medical data in China, is characterized by a more restrictive rather than permissive approach. The proportion of Chinese medical data being leveraged for scientific research still has room for improvement at present, indicating a significant untapped potential for advancing medical knowledge and improving healthcare outcomes. Building upon this research, we aim to delve deeper into the challenges researchers encounter in the sharing of medical data through focus group interviews.MethodsWe conducted two focus group interviews study with researchers representing diverse disciplines to explore their perspectives on 21 June 2021 and 28 July 2021. A total of seventeen researchers willingly participated in this study, representing various professional backgrounds. Similar codes were merged. Research team discussions were also utilized to select interviewees' statements that were regarded as typical or representative.ResultsThe respondents demonstrated a strong understanding that medical data should not be disseminated arbitrarily, recognizing the importance of sharing data in compliance with laws. Through the interview, we found that although respondents stressed the importance of careful consideration regarding if and when this information can be responsibly released, none of the respondents raised the issue of necessitating consent from data subjects for the research use of medical data. This observation sharply contrasts with the stringent separate consent provisions for secondary data use outlined in the PIPL.ConclusionsThe findings from the focus group studies shed light on researchers' barriers and ethical challenges towards medical data sharing for scientific research, highlighting their deep concern for data security and cautious approach to sharing. The key objectives aimed at facilitating and enabling the reuse of medical data encompass enhancing interoperability, harmonizing data standards, improving data quality, safeguarding privacy, ensuring informed consent, incentivizing patients, and establishing explicit regulations pertaining to data access and utilization.
| S-EPMC11566659 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesPrenatal detection of congenital heart disease with obstetric screening remains at less than 50% in most population studies, far from what is thought to be achievable. We sought to identify barriers/facilitators for screening from the perspective of interpreting physicians and to understand how these barriers/facilitators may be associated with interpretation of screening images.MethodsOur mixed-methods studies included 4 focus groups in centers across the United States with obstetric, maternal-fetal medicine, and radiology providers who interpreted obstetric ultrasound studies. Themes around barriers/facilitators for fetal heart screening were coded from transcripts. A national Web-based survey was then conducted, which quantitatively measured reported barriers/facilitators and measured physicians' ability to interpret fetal heart-screening images. Multivariable generalized linear random-effect models assessed the association between barriers/facilitators and the accuracy of image interpretation at the image level.ResultsThree main themes were identified in the focus groups: intrinsic barriers (ie, comfort with screening), external barriers (ie, lack of feedback), and organizational barriers (ie, study volumes). Among 190 physician respondents, 104 interpreted ultrasound studies. Perceptions of barriers varied by practice setting, with nontertiary providers having lower self-efficacy and perceived usefulness of cardiac screening. Facilitators associated with the odds of accurate interpretation of screening images were knowledge (odds ratio, 2.54; P = .002) and the volume of scans per week (odds ratio, 1.01 for every additional scan; P = .04).ConclusionsSome of the main barriers to cardiac screening identified and prioritized by physicians across the United States were knowledge of screening and minimal volumes of scans. Targeting these barriers will aid in improving prenatal detection of congenital heart disease.
| S-EPMC7357993 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Insurance organizations are essential stakeholders in health care ecosystems. For addressing future health care needs, insurance companies require access to health data to deliver preventative and proactive digital health services to customers. However, extant research is limited in examining the conditions that incentivize health data sharing. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to (1) identify the expectations of insurance customers when sharing health data, (2) determine the perceived intrinsic value of health data, and (3) explore the conditions that aid in incentivizing health data sharing in the relationship between an insurance organization and its customer. METHODS:A Web-based survey was distributed to randomly selected customers from a Finnish insurance organization through email. A single open-text answer was used for a qualitative data analysis through inductive coding, followed by a thematic analysis. Furthermore, the 4 constructs of commitment, power, reciprocity, and trust from the social exchange theory (SET) were applied as a framework. RESULTS:From the 5000 customers invited to participate, we received 452 surveys (response rate: 9.0%). Customer characteristics were found to reflect customer demographics. Of the 452 surveys, 48 (10.6%) open-text responses were skipped by the customer, 57 (12.6%) customers had no expectations from sharing health data, and 44 (9.7%) customers preferred to abstain from a data sharing relationship. Using the SET framework, we found that customers expected different conditions to be fulfilled by their insurance provider based on the commitment, power, reciprocity, and trust constructs. Of the 452 customers who completed the surveys, 64 (14.2%) customers required that the insurance organization meets their data treatment expectations (commitment). Overall, 4.9% (22/452) of customers were concerned about their health data being used against them to profile their health, to increase insurance prices, or to deny health insurance claims (power). A total of 28.5% (129/452) of customers expected some form of benefit, such as personalized digital health services, and 29.9% (135/452) of customers expected finance-related compensation (reciprocity). Furthermore, 7.5% (34/452) of customers expected some form of empathy from the insurance organization through enhanced transparency or an emotional connection (trust). CONCLUSIONS:To aid in the design and development of digital health services, insurance organizations need to address the customers' expectations when sharing their health data. We established the expectations of customers in the social exchange of health data and explored the perceived values of data as intangible goods. Actions by the insurance organization should aim to increase trust through a culture of transparency, commitment to treat health data in a prescribed manner, provide reciprocal benefits through digital health services that customers deem valuable, and assuage fears of health data being used to prevent providing insurance coverage or increase costs.
| S-EPMC7146247 | biostudies-literature
Project description:International collaboration in spinal cord injury (SCI) research is necessary to overcome the challenges often encountered by clinicians and researchers, including participant recruitment, high cost, and the need for specialized expertise. However, international collaboration poses its own obstacles. The objective of this study was to conduct an international online survey to assess barriers and facilitators to international SCI clinical research, potential initiatives to facilitate future collaborations, and the use of SCI-specific data sets and standards. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Of 364 total respondents, 213 completed the survey, with the majority of these participants based in North America (38%), Asia (22%), Europe (18%), and Oceania (16%). Over half had more than 10 years of experience in SCI research or clinical practice (57%) and 60% had previous experience with international collaborations. Funding was identified as a top barrier (82%), a facilitator (93%), and a proposed future initiative (97%). Communication and technology were also identified as strong facilitators and proposed future initiatives. The International Standards for Neurological Classification of SCI were used by 69% of participants, the International Standards to document remaining Autonomic Function after SCI by 13% of participants, and the International SCI Data Sets by 45% of participants. As the need for international collaborations in SCI research increases, it is important to identify how clinicians and researchers can be supported by SCI consumer and professional organizations, funders, and networks. Furthermore, unique solutions to overcome modifiable barriers and creation of new facilitators are also needed.
| S-EPMC5793947 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Missing or inaccessible information about the methods used in scientific research slows the pace of discovery and hampers reproducibility. Yet little is known about how, why, and under what conditions researchers share detailed methods information, or about how such practices vary across social categories like career stage, field, and region. In this exploratory study, we surveyed 997 active researchers about their attitudes and behaviors with respect to methods sharing. The most common approach reported by respondents was private sharing upon request, but a substantial minority (33%) had publicly shared detailed methods information independently of their research findings. The most widely used channels for public sharing were connected to peer-reviewed publications, while the most significant barriers to public sharing were found to be lack of time and lack of awareness about how or where to share. Insofar as respondents were moderately satisfied with their ability to accomplish various goals associated with methods sharing, we conclude that efforts to increase public sharing may wish to focus on enhancing and building awareness of existing solutions-even as future research should seek to understand the needs of methods users and the extent to which they align with prevailing practices of sharing.
| S-EPMC10771089 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeAlthough preconception reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) is preferred to screening during pregnancy, population-wide preconception screening is not routinely performed in the United States. We explored the multilevel barriers to the widespread adoption of preconception RGCS in the United States via key informant interviews.MethodsSemi-structured virtual video interviews were conducted with 29 informants with a breadth of professional expertise between May and October 2022. Data collection and qualitative analyses were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and socioecological model. Analysis focused on identifying barriers to delivering preconception RGCS at and across different levels of health care and exploring potential facilitators of preconception RGCS delivery.ResultsBarriers to preconception RGCS were identified at the levels of test characteristics, patients and couples, clinicians and care teams, and the external health care and policy environments. Across the different levels of care delivery, 3 themes of barriers emerged: (1) fragmentation and inconsistencies hinder care delivery, (2) gaps in knowledge, misconceptions, and uncertainties about RGCS are pervasive, and (3) expanding preconception RGCS in the diverse US population presents unique implementation challenges. Potential solutions were detailed by informants.ConclusionIdentifying individual and thematic barriers to preconception RGCS delivery may help to define strategies to alleviate obstacles.
| S-EPMC10825062 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Training nonspecialists in providing evidence-based psychological interventions (i.e. task-sharing) can effectively increase community access to psychological support. However, task-sharing interventions for this purpose are rarely used at scale. The aim of this study was to examine the factors influencing the potential for scaling up (i.e. scalability) of a task-sharing psychological intervention called Problem Management Plus (PM+) for Syrian refugees in Jordan. Semi-structured individual (n = 17) and group interviews (n = 20) were conducted with stakeholders knowledgeable about PM+ and the mental health system for Syrian refugees in Jordan. Using 'system innovation perspective', this study conceptualized the context as landscape developments, and systemic considerations were divided into culture (shared ways of thinking) and structure (ways of organizing). Political momentum was identified as a landscape trend likely facilitating scaling up, while predicted reductions in financial aid was regarded as a constraint. In terms of culture, the medicalized approach to mental health, stigma and gender were reported barriers for scaling up PM+. Using non-stigmatizing language and offering different modalities, childcare options and sessions outside of working hours were suggestions to reduce stigma, accommodate individual preferences and increase the demand for PM+. In relation to structure, the feasibility of scaling up PM+ largely depends on the ability to overcome legal barriers, limitations in human and financial resources and organizational challenges. We recommend sustainable funding to be made available for staff, training, supervision, infrastructure, coordination, expansion and evaluation of 'actual' scaling up of PM+. Future research may examine the local feasibility of various funding, training and supervision models. Lessons learned from actual scaling up of PM+ and similar task-sharing approaches need to be widely shared.
| S-EPMC10019561 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Aim: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) of solid tumors can inform treatment decisions; however, uptake remains low. This objective of this systematic review was to identify barriers to and facilitators of NGS in US oncology settings.Materials & methods: Embase and MEDLINE were searched in March 2023 for articles published from 2012 to 2023 on barriers and facilitators of NGS adoption for solid tumors. Surveys, interviews and observational studies were eligible. Studies on genetic testing for hereditary cancers and non-US studies were excluded. The Motheral scale, Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist and McGill Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool were used to assess study quality. Data were synthesized narratively.Results: Twenty-one studies were included. Study participants were clinicians, payers and administrators. Key barriers included complex reimbursement processes and uncertainties around clinical utility. Including recommendations for NGS in clinical practice guidelines was a key facilitator, although insurance policies were often more restrictive than guideline recommendations.Conclusion: Uptake of NGS is increasing but barriers remain. Changes to the current reimbursement frameworks are needed to increase access to NGS. The impact of implementing the 2018 National Coverage Determination, which allows access to NGS for all Medicare beneficiaries with advanced cancer, is not yet evident in the published literature.
| S-EPMC11572137 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction/objectivesCollectively, genetic diseases are not that rare, and with increasing availability of genetics-informed healthcare management, primary care providers (PCPs) are more often asked to screen for or provide genetic services. Previous studies have identified barriers that impact PCPs' ability to provide genetic services, including limited knowledge, training, and time/resources. This study set out to identify specific barriers limiting genetics service provision by PCPs within the Southeastern Regional Genetics Network (SERN) and resources that would help eliminate those barriers.MethodsPCPs were recruited through provider networks and invited to participate in semi-structured interviews, conducted via Zoom, recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Interview transcripts were independently coded by 2 coders using MAXQDA software. Thematic analysis was conducted.ResultsEleven interviews were conducted. Three predominant themes emerged from the data regarding factors impacting use of genetic services: system-wide factors, provider-specific factors, and patient factors. System-wide barriers included a lack of genetics providers and logistic challenges, which led to some PCPs coordinating referrals with other specialists or independently managing patients. Regarding provider-specific barriers, PCPs reported lack of genetics knowledge making referrals challenging. When possible, many PCPs contacted genetics providers for assistance. When not possible, some PCPs reached out to other colleagues or specialists for guidance. Patient-specific barriers included concerns or lack of information regarding genetics and unmet social needs. Many PCPs provided additional education regarding genetics appointments or testing benefits to their patients. Assistance from genetic counselors, electronic medical record systems that support referral to genetics, prior experience referring to genetics, established communication channels with genetics professionals, and highly motivated patients all facilitated improved collaboration with genetic services. PCPs provided suggestions for future resources to support interactions with genetics, including clear referral guidelines, increased access to genetics providers, improved test ordering processes, increased access to genetic education, and communication systems.ConclusionsPCPs face barriers at 3 different levels when engaging with genetic services: systems, providers, and patients. This study identified strategies that PCPs use to address these barriers, which are dependent on individual resources and practice settings. These strategies demonstrate resourcefulness in working to incorporate genetics into clinics operating at maximum capacity. By targeting barriers that uniquely impact providers, systems, and patients, as well as building upon strategies that PCPs are already using, medical providers can support PCPs to help with the provision of genetic services.
| S-EPMC9647281 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere has been considerable investment and strategic planning to introduce genomic testing into Australia's public health system. As more patients' genomic data is being held by the public health system, there will be increased requests from researchers to access this data. It is important that public policy reflects public expectations for how genomic data that is generated from clinical tests is used. To inform public policy and discussions around genomic data sharing, we sought public opinions on using genomic data contained in medical records for research purposes in the Australian state of Queensland.MethodsA total of 1494 participants completed an online questionnaire between February and May 2019. Participants were adults living in Australia. The questionnaire explored participant preferences for sharing genomic data or biological samples with researchers, and concerns about genomic data sharing.ResultsMost participants wanted to be given the choice to have their genomic data from medical records used in research. Their expectations on whether and how often they needed to be approached for permission on using their genomic data, depended on whether the data was identifiable or anonymous. Their willingness to sharing data for research purposes depended on the type of information being shared, what type of research would be undertaken and who would be doing the research. Participants were most concerned with genomics data sharing that could lead to discrimination (insurance and employment), data being used for marketing, data security, or commercial use.ConclusionsMost participants were willing to share their genomic data from medical records with researchers, as long as permission for use was sought. However, the existing policies related to this process in Queensland do not reflect participant expectations for how this is achieved, particularly with anonymous genomics data. This inconsistency may be addressed by process changes, such as inclusion of research in addition to clinical consent or general research data consent programs.
| S-EPMC7678081 | biostudies-literature